Pandora Mikado
Semi-Pro
Zing Lady is funny. She's that kind of large fierce ugly woman who owns a small fierce ugly dog.
Greater Grass Court Player? Murray vs. Nadal
- Thread starter BGod
- Start date
mike danny
Bionic Poster
Oh, man, you foreshadowed it
Sport
G.O.A.T.
I have changed my mind and I follow always the same universal criterion. Roddick >> Del Potro. Grand Slam achievements >>>> achievements outside Grand Slams.
Murray 5 Queens Club - an all time record
Murray 1 Olympic Gold on Grass
Murray 2 Wimbledon Wins/1 Wimbledon Runner-up
Nadal - 1 Stuttgart title/1 Queen title
Nadal - 2 Wimbledon Wins /3 Runner-ups
So is 4 More non-Wimbledon titles at Queens and the Olympics (Murray) better than 2 Wimbledon Runner-ups?
Murray 1 Olympic Gold on Grass
Murray 2 Wimbledon Wins/1 Wimbledon Runner-up
Nadal - 1 Stuttgart title/1 Queen title
Nadal - 2 Wimbledon Wins /3 Runner-ups
So is 4 More non-Wimbledon titles at Queens and the Olympics (Murray) better than 2 Wimbledon Runner-ups?
Sport
G.O.A.T.
Jimmy Connors has more ATP titles than Roger Federer, yet no one considers him greater than Federer. Analogously, Murray has more titles on grass than Nadal but it does not mean he is greater on grass.
Quality >> quantity. Murray won all of his Queens titles without facing Federer, Nadal or Djokovic.
Grand Slam achievements >>> achievements outside Grand Slams.
Murray is only greater on grass than Nadal in the Olympics and Masters 500.
In the Grand Slam on grass (Wimbledon), Nadal is clearly greater. Yes, Murray has a higher % percentage but it doesn't mean he has a greater Wimbledon career. Soderling has a lower % percentage than Ferrer at Roland Garros, yet Soderling has a greater Roland Garros career (2 RG finals of Soderling versus only one of Ferrer). Soderling is clearly greater on clay than Ferrer.
Number of Grand Slam finals >> % percentage.
Nadal dominates Murray 3-0 at Wimbledon and has 2 extra Wimbledon finals. So he has a greater Wimbledon career. Since Grand Slam achievements >>> achievements outside Grand Slams, Nadal is undoubtedly greater on grass than Murray.
Djokovic2011
Bionic Poster
Yeah and I've noticed it's nearly always the Federer groupies like metsman and abmk that do most of the dragging. They just hate the fact that Murray is/was a better player than their beloved Roddick and Hewitt and thus tougher competition for Djokovic(and Fedal as well) than they were for Saint Roger.
icedevil0289
G.O.A.T.
damn that bitterness came out fast, lol and ofcourse you of all people would see it that way. also i dont think ive ever seen abmk "drag" murray.
Sport
G.O.A.T.
Yes. Grand Slam achievements >>> achievements outside Grand Slams.
Quality > quantity. Jimmy Connors has more titles than Federer yet not one considers him greater than Roger, since Federer has greater Grand Slam achievements.
You are equating Grand Slam achievements with achievements in Olympics and Masters 500 (Queens is a Masters 500).
Kei Nishikori has 1 GS final and 1 GS SF but 0 Olympic Golds. Nicolás Massut has 0 GS QF but 1 Olympic Gold. Since Grand Slam achievements >>>> achievements outside Grand Slams, Nishikori is greater than Massut.
Kevin Anderson has 2 GS finals, and only 1 Masters 500. Leonardo Mayer has 0 GS SF, but 2 Masters 500. Since Grand Slams achievements >>>>> achievements outside Grand Slams, Anderson is greater than Leonardo Mayer.
Nadal dominates Murray 3-0 at Wimbledon and has 5 Wimbledon finals. Murray has 3 Wimbledon finals, but the Olympics on grass and more Queens titles. Since Grand Slams achievements >>>> achievements outside Grand Slams, Nadal is undoubtedly greater on grass than Murray.
Towser83
G.O.A.T.
wow you change your mind a lot in the space of a few months, maybe you'll change it back when it suits you. That's a very good way of always being right
Appreciate you replying though.
So.... answer me this. If Nadal had lost in the olympics in 2008 and gone one further round in the USO and lost, would that have been better than winning the olympic gold and making the USO semis? Is never winning the olympics worth going to an extra USO final.
Genuinely interested at your opinion
CentreCourt
Rookie
The number of logical fallacies here is impressive.
Grand Slam achievements being greater than those outside slams does not mean achievements outside of grand slams have no bearing. I would contend that any slam achievement supersedes non-slam achievements anyway. The ATP already places a value on the events, so it is not hard to follow that.
Reaching a final is all well and good - but if a guy reaches one final and gets bashed out in the first round the next two times, he does not have a greater CV than a guy who made the semi final, at least, every time.
As demonstrated (which you ignored, I see), the ATP points totals across their Wimbledon careers is pretty conclusive - Murray has more total points and even more points on average per tournament (Murray averages better than a semi-final each Wimbledon and Nadal averages less than a semi-final each Wimbledon). That makes him a better player, by any objective metric, at Wimbledon across their careers. That, alongside the non-Wimbledon achievements you seem to think are irrelevant make him a greater grass court player.
Did Nadal, at times, reach a higher level? Perhaps when the conditions suited him, yes, but that does not make him a greater grass court player. Is he a greater player? By far, just not on grass IMO
D
Deleted member 733170
Guest
I guess it depends how one spins the National burden argument. My personal view is that Murray’s game is not particularly well suited to grass yet he has done disproportionately well on that surface. I think the pressure may sharpen him up and give him that raison d’etre which he has lacked at times in his career.
You are right about Federer in the 2012 final, but that was not the case in the Olympics nor against Djokovic in 13 and Raonic in 16. His Wimbledon losses to Nadal were with the home crowd rooting for him as well.
D
Deleted member 733170
Guest
It does matter when you try and elevate Queens to the level of a Masters 1,000.
If Federer was indeed in the Queens draws it is doubtful that this thread would ever have been created!
Druss
Hall of Fame
Why is 2008 win vs 21 yr old Murray a joke? If that's the case we could also say then that Borg's win over McEnroe in 1980 is a joke too, the guy was only 21! The USO 1990 was a total joke as the final contestants were 19 and 20. Agassi's 1992 Wimby win over Goran is a joke too.....shall i carry on?
mike danny
Bionic Poster
Yes, exactly, tough competition for Djokovic only.
Murray is being dragged through the mud because you guys are over-hyping him constantly just because Djokovic couldn't stop him. Meanwhile, Fed was good enough to stop Hewitt/Roddick, so of course they are weak era players.
RogerFederer007
New User
Hewitt/Roddick (Especially Roddick) gave Federer more trouble than Murray at GS.
NatF
Bionic Poster
Djokovic2011
Bionic Poster
Has nothing to do with over-hyping mike. Murray was just a better player than them irrespective of different matchups and I have a feeling they'd agree with me.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
mike danny
Bionic Poster
Murray is being dragged through the mud mainly because he is over-hyped as some GOAT competition for Djokovic at the expense of undermining Federer's. He is better than Hewitt/Roddick, but that doesn't translate to him being tougher competition than what Fed had.
But this is not the time for such discussions anyway.
Djokovic2011
Bionic Poster
I disagree but yeah, probably not the most appropriate time to be talking about such things.
Towser83
G.O.A.T.
Nope. That's just your opinion based on whatever criteria you've made up this week to support Nadal. Next week you'll probably change it when the same criteria is used against Nadal.
The olympics is played on grass and that's what the topic is about, not who is better at Wimbledon - in which case I'd probably pick Nadal due to the extra finals, though not making it to the second week of Wimbledon for 5 straight years of his prime doesn't do him any favours at all.
Still haven't addressed this either
So.... answer me this. If Nadal had lost in the olympics in 2008 and gone one further round in the USO and lost, would that have been better than winning the olympic gold and making the USO semis? Is never winning the olympics worth going to an extra USO final?
Genuinely interested at your opinion
BGod
G.O.A.T.
Murray's breakthrough was at USO 08 on fast hard. McEnroe won USO 79.
Poisoned Slice
Bionic Poster
Rafa smokes Andeee's boots.
DSH
Talk Tennis Guru
i am half joking but my point stands: queens is indeed the second most prestigious event on grass but is not a master 1000, especially when federer is not there.
The ATP World Tour Masters 1000 is the third highest tier of annual men's tennis tournament after the four grand slam tournaments and the atp.
queens and halle are atp 500, dont forget about it.
pd: you have be less sensitive when talking about murray.
DSH
Talk Tennis Guru
federer 8 wimbledon.......................................................djokovic 4 wimbledon.
DSH
Talk Tennis Guru
Rafael Nadal: “If” doesn’t exist in sport. That’s the real thing. If, if, if – never comes. The thing is, you have to do it.
Of course you say this because you're a Nole fan. Just because you say so doesn't mean it's a fact or true.
I can agree that Murray is better than them on clay, but on hard court and grass, that's another story. Nole lost to Murray at Wimbledon and USO while Federer dominated Hewitt/Roddick at same venues doesn't equate to them being an inferior to Murray.
DSH
Talk Tennis Guru
murray was a "baby" in wimbledon 2008 but a couple of months later le garçon est devenu un jeune.
Druss
Hall of Fame
Murray won Madrid and Cincinnati in 2008 and was No4 that year, behind the Big3. It doesn’t make sense to say he was a ‘baby’ for Wimbledon, to then be ‘fully matured’ 1 or 2 months later. The guy lost to Nadal, who went on to beat Fed. Geez, if the same Murray had his 2016 draw, he’d have been Wimby Champion back in 2008.
You are working off a tie break rule ie only count non-slam results if slam achievements match. Some here adhere to that. Many here adhere to a mixed approach - include everything in the count weighting events appropriately. I adhere to the latter. So if someone was on 13 slams and 30 masters 1000 wins, they would be ahead of someone on 14 slam wins and 2 masters 1000
chjtennis
G.O.A.T.
The real grass might have enabled Murray to achieve more success, but the homogenized grass gave more chances to Nadal (no disrespect, he is so good a player that he could've been a contender on grass in any era). Federer once mentioned that Murray is the most natural grass court player of the other big 3. there's only a very thin gap between Murray and Nadal on grass, but I would give Murray the nod. In terms of achievements, Murray still has won more on grass and that, to me, is the difference.
abmk
Bionic Poster
nah, Murray barely survived being straight-setted by Gasquet at Wim 08 (had to save atleast 1 MP in the 3rd set).
He only hit his stride in summer HC season.
If Murray of Wim 2008 had the same draw as he did in Wim 2016, he'd be beaten by Tsonga Wim 2016 in 4 sets tops.
And if Raonic didn't face him in a final, he'd have a good shot at beating Murray of Wim 08 as well.
Druss
Hall of Fame
Hmmm didn’t Gasquet make the SF the previous year, beating Roddick in the process? Gasquet was very good on grass back in those days IIRC, so credit to Murray for beating him. Tsonga OTOH last year was far from his glory days. I would actually fancy 2007/08 Gasquet with a shot over 2016 Tsonga.
abmk
Bionic Poster
yeah, Gasquet was good on grass that time, but Murray was a point away from losing to him in straight sets.
Tsonga actually played some damn good tennis vs Murray in sets 1, 3 and 4 in Wim 16. Murray barely snuck out set1. Tsonga took sets 3 and 4. Tsonga played below par in sets 2 and 5 and hence lost those sets badly.
StrongRule
Talk Tennis Guru
I think I found the most ridiculous comment in the history of this forum. I always knew this guy is a just a pathetic troll and Nadal hater, but I thought everything has limits.
StrongRule
Talk Tennis Guru
By the way, Nadal is clearly the much better player. 2007-2008 version beats any version of Murray on grass IMO.
RF-18
Talk Tennis Guru
It's funny that you You refer peak periods for Fed in the previous post but then don't acknowledge Nadal was beating Murray on grass in 2008 2010 and 11. Murray had not even reached his best yet.
I guess as usual people Only Apply peak and prime periods when it suits them. Only Federer gets this handicap.
RF-18
Talk Tennis Guru
No he is not clearly better
Depends with whom I'm chatting. If it's a rational person, I will be rational and concede their points, but if they will try to cherry pick, I will cherry pick. I'm only logical with people that I respect, fanboys don't respond to logic at all, so why bother, I'm here to have fun after all. But when I talk with Djokovic2011 or MikeNadal or some that I respect and are reasonable, then I won't cherry pick.
StrongRule
Talk Tennis Guru
You are hyping Murray as usual. Nothing new. Only a total troll like OP might think Murray's Wimbledon 2013 run was better than Nadal's 2008.
Murray's best runs on grass were Wimbledon 2012 and Olympics 2012. Still loses to the best versions of Nadal in 4 sets IMO.
OK, beating peak Djokovic in W final is underrated. Nole is 3-0 versus Fed in W finals, so Murray beating Nole there is as good as what Rafa did in 2008.
StrongRule
Talk Tennis Guru
That was the worst Djokovic played in a slam final though. Djokovic was playing a great tournament until the final, but he was probably dead after the semifinal he had and his level dropped dramatically. This final was in general very low quality. Murray's 2012 runs on grass were more impressive IMO, especially the one at the Olympics.
No, Murray is counter-puncher, he made Djokovic play bad. That's what counter-punchers do, that's the point of their game, so everybody looks worse versus them. Dead, don't make me laugh even old Fed won AO 19 after 3 five setters and he was fresh as a daisy in AO19 final, don't say Djoko who is better athlete than Fed was tired.
Lack of grass competition. Roddick has many Wimbledon finals and Hewitt won Wimbledon.
